Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist."

Religions > Atheism > Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist."

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"The Church of The Painful Truth"
Date:	04 Mar 2004 09:17:02 PM
Object:	Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist."

Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist."
1 Unless compelling reasons for God's existence can be given,
there is the "presumption of atheism." Another atheist, Michael
Scriven,considers the lack of evidence for God's existence and the lack of
evidence for Santa Claus on the same level.
2 However, the presumption of atheism actually turns out to be
presumptuousness. The Christian must remember that the atheist also shares
the burden of proof, which I will demonstrate below.
First, even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God's
existence, atheism still would not be shown to be true.
3 The outspoken atheist Kai Nielsen recognizes this: "To show that an
argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the
argument is
false....All the proofs of God's existence may fail, but it still may be the
case that God exists."
4Second, the "presumption of atheism" demonstrates a rigging of the rules
of philosophical debate in order to play into the hands of the atheist,
who himself makes a truth claim. Alvin Plantinga correctly argues that
the atheist does not treat the statements "God exists" and "God does not
exist" in the same manner.
5 The atheist assumes that if one has no
evidence for God's existence, then one is obligated to believe that God
does not exist - whether or not one has evidence against God's
existence. What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much
a claim to know something ("God does not exist") as theism ("God
exists"). Therefore, the atheist's denial of God's existence needs just
as much substantiation as does the theist's claim; the atheist must give
plausible reasons for rejecting God's existence.
Third, in the absence of evidence for God's existence, agnosticism, not
atheism, is the logical presumption. Even if arguments for God's
existence do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed because
atheism is not neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only
if there is sufficient evidence against God's existence.
Fourth, to place belief in Santa Claus or mermaids and belief in God on
the same level is mistaken. The issue is not that we have no good
evidence for these mythical entities; rather, we have strong evidence
that they do not exist. Absence of evidence is not at all the same as
evidence of absence, which some atheists fail to see.
.

User: "Maverick"
Title: Re: Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist."	05 Mar 2004 08:21:34 AM

"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
news:OiS1c.94$8l1.112646@news.uswest.net:

With the difference that the name "Santa Claus" and some of the character
comes from an actual person. Also, there is compelling evidence in the
existence of Santa, as I will show later on in this post.

2 However, the presumption of atheism actually turns out to be
presumptuousness. The Christian must remember that the atheist also
shares the burden of proof, which I will demonstrate below.
First, even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God's
existence, atheism still would not be shown to be true.

It would be the best position to take, since it fits with the currently
availible data. The only way you can show how it's NOT true is to present
before me one of your gods.

3 The outspoken atheist Kai Nielsen recognizes this: "To show that an
argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of
the argument is
false....All the proofs of God's existence may fail, but it still may
be the case that God exists."

4Second, the "presumption of atheism" demonstrates a rigging of the
rules of philosophical debate in order to play into the hands of the
atheist, who himself makes a truth claim. Alvin Plantinga correctly
argues that the atheist does not treat the statements "God exists" and
"God does not exist" in the same manner.
5 The atheist assumes that if one has no
evidence for God's existence, then one is obligated to believe that
God does not exist - whether or not one has evidence against God's
existence.

There have been no evidence of the existence of any of the gods that
mystics have created. Yes this is an assumption, but not a very bold one.
Or do you have evidence? Have you seen other presenting evidence? Do you
know of anyone who has it?

What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as
much a claim to know something ("God does not exist") as theism ("God
exists"). Therefore, the atheist's denial of God's existence needs
just as much substantiation as does the theist's claim; the atheist
must give plausible reasons for rejecting God's existence.

Unless you decide to believe I have one, I want you to prove that I have
no firebreathing dragon in my garage.

Third, in the absence of evidence for God's existence, agnosticism,
not atheism, is the logical presumption. Even if arguments for God's
existence do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed because
atheism is not neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only
if there is sufficient evidence against God's existence.

Atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods (It's amazing how often we
have to repeat ourselves about this. It's really not that hard to
understand, you know).

Fourth, to place belief in Santa Claus or mermaids and belief in God
on the same level is mistaken. The issue is not that we have no good
evidence for these mythical entities; rather, we have strong evidence
that they do not exist. Absence of evidence is not at all the same as
evidence of absence, which some atheists fail to see.

Oh really? What evidence do you have that Santa does not exist?
The Institute for Santa Research have shown that there is plenty of
evidence for Santa :-)
**********
We recieve christmas gifts every year, and that is evidence that he does
indeed exist. Sure, some of them come from family and friends, but can
you really tell me that's the origin of all gifts? And we know these
facts as well:
a) There are reindeers. This is supported not only by anecdotes but also
by scientists (mostly fake PhD's here at our Institute for Santa
Research)
b) Many people have reported that they have seen sleighmarks in the snow,
and some claim to have seen actual sleighs.
c) Red clothes are known to exist.
The scientific theory of a gift-giving entity called Santa Claus, who is
making annual appearances at night, have great explanatory powers, unlike
the Theory of Parents (the religious idea that parents bought most of the
gifts for their kids). For example, Santa flying around in his sleigh
could account for many of the unsolved UFO sightings. Can the Theory of
Parents explain that? No, I thought so. The north pole is mostly
unchartered territory, and noone really knows what's beneath all that
snow and ice. The Santa Theory can explain this, by simply explaining
what IS there; Santas residence. It can also explain the First Cause of
All Gifts.
.

User: "Denis Loubet"
Title: Re: Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist."	04 Mar 2004 09:49:32 PM

"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message
news:OiS1c.94$8l1.112646@news.uswest.net...

Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist."

A person is minding his own business.
The theist comes up to him and says "There's a god!"
The person says "I don't believe you."
Suddenly that person is an atheist.
The theist says "No, really! There's a god!"
The new atheist says "Prove it."
That's all.
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.

User: "Carol Lee Smith"
Title: Re: Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist."	04 Mar 2004 10:23:05 PM

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Denis Loubet wrote:

The theist comes up to him and says "There's a god!"
The person says "I don't believe you."
Suddenly that person is an atheist.
The theist says "No, really! There's a god!"
The new atheist says "Prove it."
That's all.

Not quite. There is something else. The individual who posted that and
who hides behind a pseudonym when he commits plagiarism, doesn't even come
up with original thought. He cuts and pastes and fails to provide a
citation or recognize the real author, however flawed his reasoning may
be: Paul Copan
http://www.equip.org/free/DA252.htm
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
-- Robert Anton Wilson

.

User: "Vic Sagerquist"
Title: Re: Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist."	04 Mar 2004 10:33:51 PM

One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Denis Loubet:

"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message news:OiS1c.94$8l1.112646@news.uswest.net...

Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon the
theist."

A person is minding his own business.

The theist comes up to him and says "There's a god!"

The person says "I don't believe you."

Suddenly that person is an atheist.

The theist says "No, really! There's a god!"

The new atheist says "Prove it."

That's all.

Even in simple kindergarten terms, KKKrutch is too stoopid to understand.
Poor KKKrutch. Must be tough going through life with a bible pasted to
your forehead.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Plonked by Angelicusrex 2/24/04
______________
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God".
The wise man announces it to the world.
.

User: "Steve Jones"
Title: Re: Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist."	05 Mar 2004 03:03:06 AM

"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message news:<OiS1c.94$8l1.112646@news.uswest.net>...

There is no "truth" or "falsity" about atheism. It describes a state
of mind. The question you seem to be trying to pose is "Is the
atheist reasonable to maintain a lack of belief in gods?"

Which is ineluctably true. But also, and equally ineluctably,
irrelevant. There may be a god or gods, but I have no evidence that
there is, and thus I conclude that, for all practical purposes, there
is not. There MAY also exist an Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying
Kumquat God or any number of things that I can conceive of. But I
have no evidence that there is, and thus I conclude that there is not.
If you conclude that your god exists but these other things do not,
why do you do so? Can you prove that they do not? If you can, please
do so. If you cannot, why should I listen to your special pleading
about your god?

4Second, the "presumption of atheism" demonstrates a rigging of the rules
of philosophical debate in order to play into the hands of the atheist,
who himself makes a truth claim. Alvin Plantinga correctly argues that
the atheist does not treat the statements "God exists" and "God does not
exist" in the same manner.

This is not a rigging of the rules - it's logical. An infinite number
of posited things MAY exisit. Should we treat them all as if they DO?
Should *you* treat the statement "God exists" and "The Flying Kumquat
God exists" as equivalent? If not, why not? Should you consider
"Odin exists, but all other gods do not" as false. If so, why?

5 The atheist assumes that if one has no
evidence for God's existence, then one is obligated to believe that God
does not exist - whether or not one has evidence against God's
existence.

What kind of evidence would support the absence of a thing? For
example, if I suggest that Neptune exists, what method would you use
to disprove that statement?

What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much
a claim to know something ("God does not exist") as theism ("God
exists"). Therefore, the atheist's denial of God's existence needs just
as much substantiation as does the theist's claim; the atheist must give
plausible reasons for rejecting God's existence.

Insupportable. See above.

Third, in the absence of evidence for God's existence, agnosticism, not
atheism, is the logical presumption. Even if arguments for God's
existence do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed because
atheism is not neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only
if there is sufficient evidence against God's existence.

Insupportible - are you agnostic about Quetzalcoatl? I hope you would
not claim to be, for example, a Christian if you are. See above.
You are simply reiterating your argument.

What is that evidence?

Absence of evidence is not at all the same as
evidence of absence, which some atheists fail to see.

"Evidence of Absence" is not a valid concept. It'a bit like saying
someone is guilty until proven innocent: "There's no evidence he did
it" "Ah, but is there any evidence he *didn't* do it?"
Regards,
Steve
(Pentylzic)
.

User: "Virgil"
Title: Re: Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist."	05 Mar 2004 03:44:34 AM

In article <d79ae05d.0403050103.4c881da6@posting.google.com>,

(Steve Jones) wrote:

"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message
news:<OiS1c.94$8l1.112646@news.uswest.net>...

There is no "truth" or "falsity" about atheism. It describes a state
of mind. The question you seem to be trying to pose is "Is the
atheist reasonable to maintain a lack of belief in gods?"

For the majority of atheists and agnostic, this is the case, but there
is a splinter group of atheism that is as rabidly true believer as any
Christian:<quote from http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html >
It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and
weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief
in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief
that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming
that all atheists are "strong atheists". There is a qualitative
difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter
of degree.
<end quote>

One may take the non-existence of things for which there is no evidence
of existence as a working hypothesis, but one not claim it as fact
without supporting evidence.

5 The atheist assumes that if one has no
evidence for God's existence, then one is obligated to believe that God
does not exist - whether or not one has evidence against God's
existence.

What kind of evidence would support the absence of a thing? For
example, if I suggest that Neptune exists, what method would you use
to disprove that statement?

It is possible to prove the non-existence of 4 sided triangles by the
necessity of their having 2 or more mutually contradictory properties.
It is probably possible to disprove the simultaneous existence of
certain combinations of gods on a similar basis. Proofs of non-existence
are possible.

In the case of existence of a yet unknown planet, one could perhaps
exclude any such possibility if enough were known about the already
known objects in and near our solar system. For example, we are fairly
certain that there are no undiscovered planetary mass objects within the
orbit of pluto, as their perturbations of known orbits must by now have
been detected if there were any.

What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much
a claim to know something ("God does not exist") as theism ("God
exists"). Therefore, the atheist's denial of God's existence needs just
as much substantiation as does the theist's claim; the atheist must give
plausible reasons for rejecting God's existence.

Insupportable. See above.

Depends. Atheist simple non-belief needs no proof. A claim of no gods as
a working hypothesis needs no proof. But a claim that it is a fact that
there are no gods does need proof, as any claim that something is a
fact implies that there is proof.

Third, in the absence of evidence for God's existence, agnosticism, not
atheism, is the logical presumption. Even if arguments for God's
existence do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed because
atheism is not neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only
if there is sufficient evidence against God's existence.

Insupportible - are you agnostic about Quetzalcoatl? I hope you would
not claim to be, for example, a Christian if you are. See above.

There are at least two forms of atheism. See above. One of them at least
is not neutral and is as much in need of proof as any religious creed.

You are simply reiterating your argument.

What is that evidence?

Absence of evidence is not at all the same as
evidence of absence, which some atheists fail to see.

User: "Carol Lee Smith"
Title: Re: Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist."	05 Mar 2004 08:52:03 AM

On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Virgil wrote:

Interesting quote, but does it really say to you that there is a "splinter
group of atheism that is as rabidly true believer as any Christian" ?
What does this "splinter group" call itself?
<snip>

"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
-- Robert Anton Wilson

.

User: "Carol Lee Smith"
Title: Re: Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist."	05 Mar 2004 09:04:04 AM

On 5 Mar 2004, Steve Jones wrote:

"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message news:<OiS1c.94$8l1.112646@news.uswest.net>...

Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist."

... 2 However, the presumption of atheism actually turns out to be
presumptuousness. The Christian must remember that the atheist also shares
the burden of proof, which I will demonstrate below.
First, even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God's
existence, atheism still would not be shown to be true.

There is no "truth" or "falsity" about atheism. It describes a state
of mind. The question you seem to be trying to pose

He would like us to think he is guilty of an original thought, but he is
not. He plagiarized Paul Copan when he posted that material.
Deuteronomy 5:19

... There MAY also exist an Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying
Kumquat God or any number of things that I can conceive of. But I
have no evidence that there is, and thus I conclude that there is not.
If you conclude that your god exists but these other things do not,
why do you do so? Can you prove that they do not? If you can, please
do so. If you cannot, why should I listen to your special pleading
about your god?

Interesting questions. I doubt anyone will take them on.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Our civiliaztion is not Christian. It does not co e from the skies. It
is not a result of 'inspiriation.' It is the child of invention of
discovery, of applied knowledge--that is to say, of science. When man
becomes great and grand enough to admit that we all have equal rights;
when though is untrammeled; when worship shall consist in doing useful
things; when religion means the discharge of obligations to our
fellow-men, then, and not until then, will the world be civilized."
--Robert Green Ingersoll, "Reply to the Indianapolis Clergy," The
Iconoclast, Indianapolis, Indiana (1882)
.

User: "Dirk Murcray"
Title: Re: Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist."	05 Mar 2004 09:55:23 AM

"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message news:<OiS1c.94$8l1.112646@news.uswest.net>...

Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist."

What's hypocritical about expecting those proposing a hypothesis to
present the data they believe supports it? That's the norm. The
existence of God is a hypothesis advanced by theists. The
responsibility is theirs to show the skeptic the supporting data. I've
been waiting for this evidence all of my life, but have yet to
encounter anything more substantive than predictable variations of the
usual standard "proofs," all of which have been famously debunked.
Face it. Theists are unable even to define God unambiguously, much
less produce any evidence.
.

User: "Steve Makohin"
Title: Re: Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist."	05 Mar 2004 11:49:03 AM

In article <OiS1c.94$8l1.112646@news.uswest.net>,
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote:

Correction: Whenever someone makes an existential claim of any sort,
the burned of proof is on the person making the positive claim.
History has shown us that this strategy is most effective in getting
to the truth. It is more accurate to say that when an existential
claim is made, and it is wholly lacking in proof, then the prudent
position is to not adopt the claim as being true. This applies equally
to claims of "Selenites" living on the moon, or of deities existing in
reality.
On a personal note, I would argue that the "proof of Santa Clause"
scenario is substantially different than the "proof of God" scenario,
though I would note that the existential proof compiled to date in
favor for both scenarios is identical (that being not one iota).

2 However, the presumption of atheism actually turns out to be
presumptuousness...

Incorrect. The term "presumptuous" means "overstepping due bounds (as
of propriety or courtesy) : taking liberties" (www.m-w.com). Clearly,
this is not the case. The lack of belief in deities, which
characterizes many atheists, is entirely within the bounds of science,
reason, logic, critical thinking, and plain old common sense. Those
atheists that assert that this proves that deities DO NOT exist are
doing so from a position of faith in their belief, similarly to the
faith that theists have in their belief that deities *do* exist.

The Christian must remember that the atheist also shares
the burden of proof, which I will demonstrate below.
First, even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God's
existence, atheism still would not be shown to be true.

Your understanding of atheist is only partial. You are referring only
to those atheists that have "absolute, 100%, unquestionably unerring"
belief that deities do not exist, and who feel the lack of proof
positive proves the negative. Simply put, these atheists are incorrect
in their "understanding" of "proof negative."
Your beliefs regarding atheism ignore the great many atheists (like
me) that simply lack the belief in deities, and who do not assert that
deities do not in fact exist in reality. They merely point out the
profound and absolute lack of proof that these alleged deities exist,
and for that lack of that proof, they choose not to adopt an
existential belief in deities. You are lacking this critical piece of
the puzzle, and therefore, your understanding is incomplete and has
lead you to erroneous conclusions.

You are correct! And a good scientist, as well as the most astute of
critical thinkers would agree with that statement above. They would
not stop there, however. Additionally, they would note the following:
1) An existential claim was made
2) On the principles of logic alone, the claim is not supported
3) There is absolutely no proof to suggest the claim is correct,
however,
4) There is absolutely no proof to suggest that the _opposite_ of
the claim has been proven, either.
They would then conclude that in cases where an existential claim is
made, and where it fails on logical ground, and where there is an
absolute lack of proof to support that claim, it is prudent to not
adopt the unsubstantiated belief that the claim is true. So we are
back to an atheist who simply lacks the belief in deities, who does
not assert that it is a proven fact that they don't exist, but who
diligently notes that there is no rational reason to adopt a belief in
deistic existence.
This sounds to me like the "good atheist" versus the "evil atheist"
you portray in your writings.

4Second, the "presumption of atheism" demonstrates a rigging of the
rules of philosophical debate in order to play into the hands of the
atheist, who himself makes a truth claim. Alvin Plantinga correctly
argues that the atheist does not treat the statements "God exists"
and "God does not exist" in the same manner.

You are missing a critical element of the puzzle that would give you a
genuine understanding of what's going on. The issue at hand is not a
debate of one "truth claim" versus another, but different "truth
claim", as you allege (i.e., Joe's "truth" versus Jane's "truth"). The
issue at hand is the validation of an existential argument. If someone
makes an existential claim, such as "a race of creatures called
Selenites live on the moon" or "deities exist in reality," then the
burden of proof rests upon the claimant to prove their claim.
This "burden of proof to support the existential claim" principle was
not devised by, nor for atheists for the purpose of battling deistic
beliefs. It was devised long ago because it was noted to be an
exceptionally good tool for getting to the truth with respect to
existential claims. So far, it has an extremely good track record for
being right, and for its widespread application in recognizing the
things that are consistent with reality.

5 The atheist assumes that if one has no evidence for God's existence,
then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist - whether or
not one has evidence against God's existence. What the atheist fails
to see is that atheism is just as much a claim to know something
("God does not exist") as theism ("God exists")....

Your statement above covers only those atheists who assert, with the
same degree of absolute, unerring, and unquestionable confidence and
certainty as that which is held by theists, that deities do not in
fact exist in reality.
May other atheists, such as myself, simply note the absolute lack of
proof to support the existential deistic claim, and they chose not to
adopt that claim as being true. There are many other reasons why
"soft-core" atheists such as myself (perhaps we should be called
"moderates"?) do not adopt a belief in deities, and I've documented
them in another posting I made in a response to another one of your
threads.

Therefore, the atheist's denial of God's existence needs just
as much substantiation as does the theist's claim; the atheist must
give plausible reasons for rejecting God's existence.

Only for those cases were atheist assert that it is proven that
deities do not exist. For moderates such as myself, our job is really
easy: we simply note the absolute and total lack of proof to support
the claim for deistic existence, we do not adopt the claim as being
true (i.e., we lack that belief), we do not assert that deities are
proven not to exist, and we can simply fold our collective arms over
our chest as say: If you want me to adopt your existential claim as
being true, you'll have to prove that it is true. This attitude is
consistent with science, logic, critical thinking, and common sense.

Third, in the absence of evidence for God's existence, agnosticism, not
atheism, is the logical presumption. Even if arguments for God's
existence do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed because
atheism is not neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only
if there is sufficient evidence against God's existence.

Your statement is only true if one uses a very narrow definition of
"atheism," and in doing so, one must exclude the great many atheists,
myself included, who do not fit your narrow definition. The narrow
definition you appear to have adopted for atheism is "the assertion
that deities do not exist", or something to that effect.
Some people are okay with the principle that a belief can be accepted
as being true providing that you discard no more than 50% of the
available data. I am not okay with that principle.

Fourth, to place belief in Santa Claus or mermaids and belief in God on
the same level is mistaken. The issue is not that we have no good
evidence for these mythical entities; rather, we have strong evidence
that they do not exist. Absence of evidence is not at all the same as
evidence of absence, which some atheists fail to see.

NOW we're onto something, he said with a devilish grin! How do you
"know" these things are myths? What is your "strong evidence" that
they do not exist in reality? This is where theists commonly trip up,
as you have.
I suggest to you that "The Church of The Painful Truth" is a misnomer,
or perhaps a bitter irony for the one who bears that name! It appears
you are not in pursuit of the truth, nor do you possess such truth,
but rather, you have firm conviction and unyielding certainty in your
Faith, and in your beliefs, and you are working diligently to support
them.
The "painful truth" is that the validation of the "Santa Clause exists
in reality" assertion and the "God exists in reality" assertion both
undergo exactly the same process, without preferential treatment of
one over the other. And the conclusions are the same: There is lack of
proof to adopt the assertion as being factual, therefore, it is
prudent not to adopt a belief that is consistent with the assertion.
FYIW, I will surely become a theist if it can be proven that deities
exist in reality, but I will not adopt any religious beliefs unless it
can be proven that specific religious beliefs are consistent with the
properties of a deity that has been proven to exist.
I realize I am pissing in the wind by telling the following to you,
but perhaps other readers may benefit from it: Get a copy of Carl
Sagan's outstanding book "A Demon Haunted World." In it, you will find
a few simple principles that can be applied to any and all things in
order to make you much more effective at being able to separate fact
from fiction. The process is called "critical thinking." Aside from
that, the book is a wonderfully entertaining as well as informative
read. BTW, the book only works if you actually read it, understand it,
and apply the principles :-)
-Steve Makohin | Reply to

| (hotmail acct is spam catcher)
.

User: "Chasing the Dragon"
Title: Re: Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist."	05 Mar 2004 03:48:07 AM

Legal
Innocent until proven guilty burden of proof on the person prosecuting.
Policing
Under suspicion until proven innocent
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message
news:OiS1c.94$8l1.112646@news.uswest.net...

the

case that God exists."

4Second, the "presumption of atheism" demonstrates a rigging of the rules
of philosophical debate in order to play into the hands of the atheist,
who himself makes a truth claim. Alvin Plantinga correctly argues that
the atheist does not treat the statements "God exists" and "God does not
exist" in the same manner.
5 The atheist assumes that if one has no
evidence for God's existence, then one is obligated to believe that God
does not exist - whether or not one has evidence against God's
existence. What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much
a claim to know something ("God does not exist") as theism ("God
exists"). Therefore, the atheist's denial of God's existence needs just
as much substantiation as does the theist's claim; the atheist must give
plausible reasons for rejecting God's existence.

Third, in the absence of evidence for God's existence, agnosticism, not
atheism, is the logical presumption. Even if arguments for God's
existence do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed because
atheism is not neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only
if there is sufficient evidence against God's existence.

Fourth, to place belief in Santa Claus or mermaids and belief in God on
the same level is mistaken. The issue is not that we have no good
evidence for these mythical entities; rather, we have strong evidence
that they do not exist. Absence of evidence is not at all the same as
evidence of absence, which some atheists fail to see.

User: "Carol Lee Smith"
Title: Re: Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist."	04 Mar 2004 10:19:41 PM

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, The Church of The Painful Truth quoted and failed to
acknowledge whose work he quoted:
Is it your habit to steal the intellectual property of others?
http://www.equip.org/free/DA252.htm
< ... Even if arguments for God's

existence do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed because
atheism is not neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only
if there is sufficient evidence against God's existence.

Bull roar.
Paul Copan is mistaken.
An atheist is without a belief in any gods. An agnostic is without any
knowledge of any gods.
You and Paul Copan are mistaken.
"Paul Copan is a Ph. D. candidate in philosophy at Marquette University
and editor of the forthcoming Who Was Jesus? A Jewish-Christian Discussion
(Word, 1997)."

Fourth, to place belief in Santa Claus or mermaids and belief in God on
the same level is mistaken.

I think you can add in the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, big foot, et.al.

The issue is not that we have no good
evidence for these mythical entities;

What evidence do you have that your particular deity of choice exists?

rather, we have strong evidence that they do not exist.

What would that be?

Absence of evidence is not at all the same as
evidence of absence, which some atheists fail to see.

Why don't you come up with some original ideas instead of commiting
plagiarism in your attempt to impress us?
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
-- Robert Anton Wilson

.

User: "Carol Lee Smith"
Title: Re: Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist."	04 Mar 2004 10:37:44 PM

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Carol Lee Smith wrote:

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, The Church of The Painful Truth quoted and failed to
acknowledge whose work he quoted:

Is it your habit to steal the intellectual property of others?

http://www.equip.org/free/DA252.htm

One more thing about this work TCOTPT stole from Paul Copan:
OK, more than one thing:
Is Atheism Presumptuous?
A Reply to Paul Copan (2000)
Jeffery Jay Lowder
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/copan.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/nat_fallacy.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/index.shtml
.

User: "Khendon"
Title: Re: Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist."	04 Mar 2004 10:52:58 PM

"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1040304223221.23985A-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Carol Lee Smith wrote:

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, The Church of The Painful Truth quoted and failed to
acknowledge whose work he quoted:

Is it your habit to steal the intellectual property of others?

http://www.equip.org/free/DA252.htm

One more thing about this work TCOTPT stole from Paul Copan:

OK, more than one thing:

Is Atheism Presumptuous?
A Reply to Paul Copan (2000)
Jeffery Jay Lowder
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/copan.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/nat_fallacy.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/index.shtml

Yup, that "Babble Answer Man" site sure helps out "Church of the Painful
Hemmoroids" a lot...
.

User: "bob young"
Title: Re: Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon thetheist."	05 Mar 2004 11:50:20 PM

The Church of The Painful Truth wrote:

Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist."

Absolutely

1 Unless compelling reasons for God's existence can be given,
there is the "presumption of atheism." Another atheist, Michael
Scriven,considers the lack of evidence for God's existence and the lack of
evidence for Santa Claus on the same level.

2 However, the presumption of atheism actually turns out to be
presumptuousness. The Christian must remember that the atheist also shares
the burden of proof, which I will demonstrate below.
First, even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God's
existence, atheism still would not be shown to be true.

3 The outspoken atheist Kai Nielsen recognizes this: "To show that an
argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the
argument is
false....All the proofs of God's existence may fail, but it still may be the
case that God exists."

4Second, the "presumption of atheism" demonstrates a rigging of the rules
of philosophical debate in order to play into the hands of the atheist,
who himself makes a truth claim. Alvin Plantinga correctly argues that
the atheist does not treat the statements "God exists" and "God does not
exist" in the same manner.
5 The atheist assumes that if one has no
evidence for God's existence, then one is obligated to believe that God
does not exist - whether or not one has evidence against God's
existence. What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much
a claim to know something ("God does not exist") as theism ("God
exists"). Therefore, the atheist's denial of God's existence needs just
as much substantiation as does the theist's claim; the atheist must give
plausible reasons for rejecting God's existence.

Third, in the absence of evidence for God's existence, agnosticism, not
atheism, is the logical presumption. Even if arguments for God's
existence do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed because
atheism is not neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only
if there is sufficient evidence against God's existence.

Fourth, to place belief in Santa Claus or mermaids and belief in God on
the same level is mistaken. The issue is not that we have no good
evidence for these mythical entities; rather, we have strong evidence
that they do not exist. Absence of evidence is not at all the same as
evidence of absence, which some atheists fail to see.

User: "Navigatorator"
Title: Re: Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie uponthe theist."	06 Mar 2004 01:50:40 AM

bob young wrote:

The Church of The Painful Truth wrote:

Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist."

Absolutely

Hey Virgil and Snipper and Jeff and MG and Wen King Su, do you see this?
Here is another of your brother theists trying to pretend to be atheist
while making the same irrational theist argument you do that an
invisible God might exist anyway, even though there is no evidence of
any such thing.
.

User: "the cutest atheist"
Title: Re: Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist."	06 Mar 2004 02:01:19 AM

"Navigatorator" <navi@navi.com> wrote in message
news:kpf2c.491779$na.1169527@attbi_s04...

bob young wrote:

The Church of The Painful Truth wrote:

Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon the

theist."

Absolutely

1 Unless compelling reasons for God's existence can be given,
there is the "presumption of atheism." Another atheist, Michael
Scriven,considers the lack of evidence for God's existence and the lack

evidence for Santa Claus on the same level.

2 However, the presumption of atheism actually turns out to be
presumptuousness. The Christian must remember that the atheist also

the burden of proof, which I will demonstrate below.
First, even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God's
existence, atheism still would not be shown to be true.

3 The outspoken atheist Kai Nielsen recognizes this: "To show that an
argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the
argument is
false....All the proofs of God's existence may fail, but it still may be

the

case that God exists."

piggybacking...
the christian god is said to have done certain things and to have certain
properties which are absolutely refutable, and indeed, have been refuted. as
do the gods of the other major theistic religions. that is not to say that
there isn't a force or a divine being or whatever around, or 'out there' -
it's just that if there is, they seem to really like their privacy, and have
no observable impact on the universe, that humanity is aware of.
atheism is the absence of belief in god. it makes no positive statements
about the atheist's belief on the *possibility* of a god. it just says that
one hasn't popped in for tea that we can invest our belief in. yet.
.

User: "Profit Passion"
Title: Re: Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon thetheist."	06 Mar 2004 02:18:23 AM

�
the cutest atheist wrote:

"Navigatorator" <navi@navi.com> wrote in message
news:kpf2c.491779$na.1169527@attbi_s04...

bob young wrote:

The Church of The Painful Truth wrote:

Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon the

theist."

Absolutely

1 Unless compelling reasons for God's existence can be given,
there is the "presumption of atheism." Another atheist, Michael
Scriven,considers the lack of evidence for God's existence and the lack

evidence for Santa Claus on the same level.

2 However, the presumption of atheism actually turns out to be
presumptuousness. The Christian must remember that the atheist also

the

case that God exists."

piggybacking...
the christian god is said to have done certain things and to have certain
properties which are absolutely refutable, and indeed, have been refuted. as
do the gods of the other major theistic religions. that is not to say that
there isn't a force or a divine being or whatever around, or 'out there' -
it's just that if there is, they seem to really like their privacy, and have
no observable impact on the universe, that humanity is aware of.

atheism is the absence of belief in god. it makes no positive statements
about the atheist's belief on the *possibility* of a god. it just says that
one hasn't popped in for tea that we can invest our belief in. yet.

you go girl!
.

User: "the cutest atheist"
Title: Re: Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist."	06 Mar 2004 02:33:41 AM

"Profit Passion" <berealz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4049894E.6788C59F@hotmail.com...

the cutest atheist wrote:

"Navigatorator" <navi@navi.com> wrote in message
news:kpf2c.491779$na.1169527@attbi_s04...

bob young wrote:

The Church of The Painful Truth wrote:

Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon the

theist."

Absolutely

1 Unless compelling reasons for God's existence can be given,
there is the "presumption of atheism." Another atheist, Michael
Scriven,considers the lack of evidence for God's existence and the

lack

evidence for Santa Claus on the same level.

2 However, the presumption of atheism actually turns out to be
presumptuousness. The Christian must remember that the atheist also

argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of

the

argument is
false....All the proofs of God's existence may fail, but it still

may be

the

case that God exists."

Hey Virgil and Snipper and Jeff and MG and Wen King Su, do you see

this?

Here is another of your brother theists trying to pretend to be

atheist

while making the same irrational theist argument you do that an
invisible God might exist anyway, even though there is no evidence of
any such thing.

piggybacking...
the christian god is said to have done certain things and to have

certain

properties which are absolutely refutable, and indeed, have been

refuted. as

do the gods of the other major theistic religions. that is not to say

that

there isn't a force or a divine being or whatever around, or 'out

there' -

it's just that if there is, they seem to really like their privacy, and

have

no observable impact on the universe, that humanity is aware of.

atheism is the absence of belief in god. it makes no positive statements
about the atheist's belief on the *possibility* of a god. it just says

that

one hasn't popped in for tea that we can invest our belief in. yet.

you go girl!

word! I mean, er, thanks
.

User: "Earle Jones"
Title: Re: Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist."	06 Mar 2004 03:06:49 PM

In article <kpf2c.491779$na.1169527@attbi_s04>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:

bob young wrote:

The Church of The Painful Truth wrote:

Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist."

Absolutely

*
Agreed. Lord Bertrand Russell put it this way:
"I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I
equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian God may
exist; so may the Gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon.
But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other: they
lie outside the region of probable knowledge, and therefore there is
no reason to consider any of them."
--Lord Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)
earle
*
.

User: "Gregory Gadow"
Title: Re: Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon thetheist."	05 Mar 2004 08:19:23 AM

The Church of The Painful Truth wrote:

Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist."

As properly it should. YOU are the ones making outrageous claims about invisible
deities and miracles; YOU are the ones responsible for proving those claims.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.

User: "bob young"
Title: Re: Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon thetheist."	05 Mar 2004 11:57:14 PM

Gregory Gadow wrote:

The Church of The Painful Truth wrote:

Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist."

As properly it should. YOU are the ones making outrageous claims about invisible
deities and miracles; YOU are the ones responsible for proving those claims....

....Aaaaah but he can''t so he becomes a word contortionist!

--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear

"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin

User: "Chasing the Dragon"
Title: Re: Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist."	05 Mar 2004 12:37:34 AM

The assertions you make may apply to an abstract undefined god. However all
gods that are worshipped have feats actions etc attributed to them which is
where Santa comes into it. A being with particular attributes. If god is to
exist in some substantial form the actions of said god must be verifiable.
If not you are correct it does not indicate that a god dose not exist only
that said god does not exist.
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message
news:OiS1c.94$8l1.112646@news.uswest.net...

the

User: "bob young"
Title: Re: Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon thetheist."	05 Mar 2004 11:53:10 PM

Chasing the Dragon wrote:

what is the sense of such an obscure god as described in some of the posts
here?
the fact is 'gods are made up'. the theists don't like their fancy gods to be
challenged so we get all these verbal contortions which try to prove something
akin to a vacuum exists. it is pathetic.
bob
Hong kong

"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message
news:OiS1c.94$8l1.112646@news.uswest.net...

the

User: "Ann Cuntler"
Title: Re: Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon thetheist."	06 Mar 2004 12:18:53 AM

--------------4995C38DD54E4E52C9B26955
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

�

Fourth, to place belief in Santa Claus or mermaids and belief in God on
the same level is mistaken. The issue is not that we have no good
evidence for these mythical entities; rather, we have strong evidence
that they do not exist. Absence of evidence is not at all the same as
evidence of absence, which some atheists fail to see.

(yawn) When will this "absence of evidence" crap ever end. Get it through your
thick head, you will depend on science when you need a triple bypass or cancer
treatment. You will not just pray that god will heal you. You do not have any
faith in God when push comes to shove. (if I were wrong you and your kind would
die off fast). Science is your life blood, just like it is mine and everyone
elses. The idea that we are living in the days when Jesus turned water into wine
is crap. Tell me where in the bible Jesus mentions plantery orbits as proof he is
god rather than magic tricks like walking on water. Tell me where he mentions that
the "oil of the earth" will be what the world runs on and then dies on. Tell me
where Jesus proved himself not by raising Lazereth from the dead but revealing the
nature of man as animal, you know the one that breast feeds instead buying formula
from Safeway!
�
�
--------------4995C38DD54E4E52C9B26955
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE> 
 > > Fourth, to place belief in Santa Claus or mermaids and belief in
God on
 > > the same level is mistaken. The issue is not that we have no good
 > > evidence for these mythical entities; rather, we have strong evidence
 > > that they do not exist. Absence of evidence is not at all the same
as
 > > evidence of absence, which some atheists fail to see.</blockquote>
(yawn) When will this "absence of evidence" crap ever end. Get it through
your thick head, you will depend on science when you need a triple bypass
or cancer treatment. You will not just pray that god will heal you.
You do not have any faith in God when push comes to shove. (if I were wrong
you and your kind would die off fast). Science is your life blood, just
like it is mine and everyone elses. The idea that we are living in the
days when Jesus turned water into wine is crap. Tell me where in the bible
Jesus mentions plantery orbits as proof he is god rather than magic tricks
like walking on water. Tell me where he mentions that the "oil of the earth"
will be what the world runs on and then dies on. Tell me where Jesus proved
himself not by raising Lazereth from the dead but revealing the nature
of man as animal, you know the one that breast feeds instead buying formula
from Safeway!
  
  </html>
--------------4995C38DD54E4E52C9B26955--
.

User: "Carol Lee Smith"
Title: Re: Atheist hypocrites say that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist."	05 Mar 2004 09:45:42 AM

On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Chasing the Dragon wrote:

The assertions you make

PULEEEEZE Don't suggest that TCofPT has an original thought in his head.
He stole the material he posted from Paul Copan.

may apply to an abstract undefined god. However all
gods that are worshipped have feats actions etc attributed to them which is
where Santa comes into it. A being with particular attributes. If god is to
exist in some substantial form the actions of said god must be verifiable.

Amen to that.
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
-- Robert Anton Wilson

.

Page 1 of 1

Post reply

Re: words "theist", "nontheist", "atheist", and "agnostic"
re: Theist Kryptonite
Non theist support groups
secular freedom or or anti-theist oppression?
yet another theist wimps out
10 Ways For the Theist To Be Annoying
Scubag Theist Has 16 KIDS And Wants MORE
The atheist / theist dicotomy revisited

Desperate Theist Sending Hate Mail Over Evolution
Theist - Hindu Human Sacrifice (Purushamedha)
A Theist Feeding Frenzy
Need More Loony Theist Nominations
Nomination, Theist Quote of the Month
Theist's rambling.
the psychology of a theist

NEWER

pg.3585 pg.2749 pg.2106 pg.1612 pg.1232